Industrial, commercial, and construction environments often employ specialized machines and equipment, each of which is designed to support a small number of specific tasks associated with the environment. Due to the specialized nature of the equipment, it is not unusual for these environments to require the use of a variety of different machines, particularly when such environments involve comprehensive, turn-key projects that involve performing a large number of different tasks. For example, a road construction project may require a pneumatic or hydraulic hammer for demolishing existing surface material; an excavator with a bucket attachment for site clearing, digging, and grading; an augur drill for digging post holes for support structures; and a forklift for loading and unloading construction supplies from supply vehicles. Providing separate machines to perform each of these specialized tasks would be expensive and inefficient.
One solution for reducing the number of machines required to perform a large number of different tasks involves the adaptation of specialized tools for use with a single machine. For instance, specialized tools, such as hammers, buckets, auger bits, and forklift attachments, may be adapted with specialized connectors to interface with a hydraulic excavator or backhoe. As such, a single piece of equipment—in this case, the hydraulic excavator or backhoe—is rendered flexible enough to perform the tasks of four different machines. This, in turn, may reduce the need for four separate machines, thereby reducing overall project costs.
Increasing the flexibility of machines to interface with different attachments and implements does not come without costs. For example, each tool needs to be specifically designed to operate as an attachment to the specific machine to which it will interface. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the different attachments are designed to perform different tasks, each of which may require different maneuverability goals and parameters. For instance, a hydraulic excavator is typically designed with two joysticks for independently controlling hydraulic actuators associated with boom lift, boom swing, movement of the stick, and movement (e.g., pivoting) of the attachment. For digging and grading operations, such independent control is effective for providing the operator with significant flexibility of movement of the bucket.
Such independent control, however, may become cumbersome and confusing for the operator if a forklift implement is attached to the machine. In particular, for loading and unloading operations using a forklift, it may be imperative that the plane defined by the forklift forks remains substantially parallel with the ground in order to prevent objects from falling from the forklift. In order to ensure that the forklift remains in the proper orientation, the operator may be required to carefully manually control the hydraulic actuators associated with the attachment as he or she raises and lowers the boom to the desired height. Such operation may be difficult and time-consuming for an operator, particularly one that is inexperienced at using multiple attachments on the machine.
Similar problems may arise when a hammer or auger tool is attached to the machine. For example, like the forklift, the hammer and auger tools may need to maintain a uniform orientation in order to effectively perform their respective tasks. In particular, the hammer and auger attachments generally need to maintain uniform movement in the direction of the tip of the tool. As with the forklift, in order to maintain this orientation, the operator may be required to carefully manually control the hydraulic actuator associated with the attachment as he or she raises and lowers the boom to the desired height.
One solution for increasing the probability that machine operators can correctly and proficiently manage machine controls for a variety of different tools and attachments is to significantly increase the amount of training required of machine operators. In addition to being costly, results of such an increase in operator training can vary dramatically, as different operators have different aptitudes for learning principles for controlling the machines.
Another potential solution for simplifying machine controllers involves automating certain commands and/or command responses to facilitate more predictable and logical control of a machine. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,511 (“the '511 patent”), which issued May 15, 2001 to Burger et al., describes electronic control for a two-axis implement that is purportedly configured to operate in a “coordinated mode.” In the coordinated mode, a control system of the machine automatically controls the bucket of an excavator such that the bucket maintains the same orientation with respect to either the surface on which the vehicle is operating. According to the '511 patent, the system can also be controlled in an uncoordinated mode, which enables independent movement of the arm and bucket.
Although the system of the '511 patent may provide a system for selectively maintaining an orientation between the bucket and arm of a machine in certain situations, the system nonetheless has limited applicability. Specifically, although the system enables both coordinated and uncoordinated control of arm and attachment adjustment mechanisms, it does not provide selective remapping schemes for supporting selective remapping of machine control features for different attachment tools.
The presently disclosed systems and methods for versatile remapping of machine implement controls are directed toward overcoming one or more of the problems set forth above and/or other problems in the art.